According to The Making of a Poem, blank verse is the poetry form that is most like human speech. I think that this is very arguable. First of all, a blank verse poem is written using iambs. I don’t think that this is a very natural way to write or speak. Also, I think that writing a poem with a set rhythm is often the most difficult part because it isn’t something that we naturally think about when we write or speak. I think that blank verse does have some very natural qualities to it as well. The lack of rhyme makes the blank verse poem feel more natural, but I think that the most important characteristic is the amount of enjambment that stems from the lack of end rhyme in a blank verse poem. This is a natural way to write in which thoughts flow from one line to the next. Overall, blank verse poetry has characteristics of natural and poetic speech. Is blank verse the closest poetic form to human speech? Is there another form that also shares these characteristics?- bga-c Feb 18, 2008
From what I have learned thus far, this is the form that is closest to human speech. As you said, bga, it does not have a rhymme scheme. Is there anybody out there who speaks completely in rhyme? I doubt it. Since human speech does not rhyme, and blank verse does not either, the two are clearly connected. Your argument, bga, seems to be based on internal iambic structure. True, humans do not normally speak in this way. But there are some, like freestyle rappers, who can with ease. Furthermore, it is not set in stone that human speech and blank verse are exactly the same. Blank verse is simply most similar to human speech than any other form, not a carbon copy of it.- JHe-c Feb 19, 2008
I think the reason why people say it is the closest to human speech is because the iamb mimics the beat of the human heart. That rhythmic quality follows traditional speech. However, I think free verse more closely mimics human speech because in free verse writing there are no restrictions. In human speech you don't think about meter when you speak; you just speak freely, with one idea flowing into the next. I think blank verse does closely mimic human speech but not nearly as well.- MSu-c
Also with the iambs, would you have noticed they were there had noone pointed them out to you? Unlike some, I am hardly saavy in the world of poetry, and the technical beat is more of something I have to listen for in any poem than actually hear in any [good] reading of the poem. It's not as clearly defined to me as some of you are making it sound. Then there is the issue of hearing it as opposed to reading it. If you just sit back and listen to different readings of poems instead of following along, it's different; you don't see the enjambment, just hear it with a breath. Writing in general is always going to be different than speech. When a poem that has a form to it is written, everything is intentional. When I say something, I am not weighing in my brain which words sound better with the surrounding ones; most likely it is which one gets the point across. And in that sense, if you are reading a poem and comparing it with speech that has been written down, no, it won't be the same. But if you listen to a poet read his/her poem, and then listen to him/her speak, I would imagine they would be extremely similar. - KLe-c Feb 20, 2008
I was thinking about what makes this form closest to human speech, and though I could not initially think of anything, I eventually came to a conclusion. Blank verse must have a combination of different attributes so that when it is read, it seems casual. On page 101, the description says, "2) It is unrhymed. 3) It is traditionally associated with dramatic speech and epic poetry. 4) The lack of rhyme makes enjambment more possible and often more effective." First, what stands out is that we often subconsciously (and rather immaturely) associate poetry with rhyme; so when a poem does not rhyme, it is automatically one notch closer to the way in which we talk. Also, this enjambment contributes to the continuous running of ideas from one line to the next. It is not choppy. It is, rather, smooth and no breaks exist from line to line to alert us of the poem's structure, that which commonly distinguishes poetry from paragraph form or vernacular. The idea is wrapped into a single breath that is the poem.- sfa-c Feb 20, 2008
Yes there is another form that is closer to human speach than blank verse. I don't know if we have given it a name or if there even is one. But it is the formless poem. One that does not pay heed to rhyme or rhythm. I would not have known about this a week ago, but recently the class had a talk about what the definition of a poem is after a reading of the "colonel." It was not even written as poem when it was written. The author never even thought of it as poem until someone told her it was poetry. If this is poetry, then it means that there must be millions of poems out there that are not at all constricted by the forms or rhyme or rhythme. They actually are natural human speach. You can't get closer than that.- MKo-c Feb 24, 2008
As MKo said, the "formless poem" is probably the closest to human speech, because it is human speech. I thought that blank verse was the closest to natural speech, until we read the poem about the colonel. But when it comes to poetry that actually has a form, I agree that blank verse is the closest to the way we speak naturally. No, we don't speak in iambs. But, when you write a paper, or speak formally, don't you try to make the words "flow"? I think this 'flow' comes from a natural iambic rhythm (rhythm of a heartbeat, as somebody else said). And since poetry with a form is intentional, it would be written perfectly in iambs. So, even though we don't always speak perfectly in iambs, blank verse mimics our natural way of speaking formally. - mmi-c Feb 25, 2008
I think that there is a difference to making something flow versus making sense. I agree that nothing can get closer to human speech than human speech, or so this formless poem seems to take. I think that so many pieces in this world can be considered both prose and poetry, and that it is all an opinion of the writer. Things such as the Apostle's Creed, Kanye West's latest rap, journal entries, and a history paper could be sitting on the line between poetry and prose. Things that began as human speech: statements, treaties, words of love, chants all became poetry at some point or another, but also contained thoughts that would normally be found in a piece of prose. I think that if there was a formless poem, it would just be prose. How would you be able to tell the difference?- bzw-c Feb 25, 2008
I would actually have to agree with the thought that Blank Verse is the closest poetry form to human speech. I mean, Blank Verse, to me (an untrained eye) basically looks like prose all squished together to make it aesthetically pleasing to the reader. I mean, obviously, it has some sort of set form to it, and I know that, but I'm just saying that it could very easily be prose that someone decided to take and embellish a bit to make it into a poem. I don't know how much closer to human speech you could get to that than, well...speaking. - MRo-c Feb 26, 2008
I think that because poetry has such a loose definition, we can say that human speech is poetry. If I decide that certain speech is poetry than it can be poetry. I like the idea that as long as one person thinks something is a poem, then it is a poem. Even if most people believe speech is merely speech, I think that in certain cases speech can be poetry. I think there are many cases in which I have thought that someone talking has spoken poetry. Some people need to see poetry written in a book to say that it is poetry. However, I think poetry can be found anywhere. I think that poetry is something that the reader can find meaning in. However, I think this is also a definition of prose so I must take decide whether something is a poem to me case by case. But just because something is a poem to me does not mean that it is a poem to someone else.- mha-c Feb 26, 2008
Yea BGa, as many have said, I think this is the closest form to normal speech. I think in your thought, or at least original post, you don't compare the blank verse to the other forms we have studied. The villanelle, sestina, pantoum, ballad, and any others I am forgetting at the moment are all further from normal speech because they have repeated and rhymed lines which so many have pointed our are not at all how we talk. So just the fact that blank verse has sentences without rhymes, even if they do have beats, makes it the closest to our vernacular.- mka-c Feb 26, 2008
I would say this is definitely the closest form to human speech--if you look at the other forms we have studied, such as the villanelle, sestina, or heroic couplet, none of those are close to how people talk. No one repeats the same lines over and over, or uses the same six words and the end of each sentence, and I've never met anyone who spoke entirely in rhyme (although that might be cool). The blank verse may use iambic pantameter, but at least it doesn't use iambic pantameter coupled with some other constraining form that makes it difficult to relate to regular speech. I think that a person could probably speak a blank verse poem without thinking on it too hard. It would probaly not appear in everyday conversation, but it sounds the most similar to how people talk. As someone pointed out, you don't even realize it's in iambic pantameter and you're listening for the accents. - dru-c Feb 27, 2008
Unlike the majority of poetic forms, there are no definite rules in blank verse: for this reason alone, it is the most similar to our daily speech. When we talk, we never think about grammar rules or sentence structure when we are talking to our friends--unless you're a grammar freak like some past English teachers--we just talk. Blank verse is like this: there are not any restrictive rules like there are in villanelles and sestinas or even ballads; it is just whatever the writer feels is best for his poem. I've enjoyed this style the most of all the poetic styles we've read so far: I've come to realize that the less amount of structure and rules there are in a poem, the more I enjoy reading it, and blank verse is about as lawless as one can get. A solid beat or rhythm in its sentences or string of words is the only requirement I think there is for blank verse; otherwise, it is a blank canvas that is open to anything. - dsU-c Feb 27, 2008
Conversation is a very good comparison to free verse poetry. Does it have to rhyme? No. Does it have to make sense? No. It just has to flow in a manner of speech. For example, I am going to type as though I am speaking and try not to think about my grammar as much as I normally would. O.K. So, I think that poetry is a way to communicate beyond the strict borders that writers are usually confined by. No one will challenge or correct an expression, only discuss it. Who are we to criticize what a poet did or does--and who are we to criticize an artists form of expression? If we can criticize their expressions, then aren't we criticizing their souls--the very core that a person is? Is a black dot on a piece of paper art? Sure it is as long as the artist defined it as such. Do we want to live in a world in which everything is only what it is defined by? I don't. And, I don't want you to either. We need to be able to express ourselves in some way or another, and if poetry and art begin to be limited for us by people trying to box in the defintion, than where will we turn? How can I live in a world where are expressions are evaluated by definition? I couldn't--could you? - cdu-c Feb 27, 2008
Okay, so blank verse isn't exactly like human speech because it uses iambs, that much is obvious. If they were exactly the same, it would not have its own name in the world of poetry. Still, the question leads to the answer that, as far as my limited mine knows, it is the closest material we have to our speech. Also, in response to CDu, I think there are always going to be critics on works that are made public. I'm not saying that it is right to judge the way someone expresses themselves, but then is it wrong for people to express their opinions? If people can't critique, the artists can lose the chance of improving. Plus, if you are going to put yourself and your work out there for the public eye, you should know that you are going to receive all kinds of feedback. It should be okay - everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and if an artist truly is inspired by and believes in what he or she has done, what others say shouldn't matter. And expressions don't have to be evaluated by a definition - it is the producer of the work who decides how they want to convey what they want to convey. That person can do it however he or she wants, but if the person chooses to use a particular method, why not stick to it and play by the rules? Love it or leave it, right? - Sha-c Feb 27, 2008
Okay, there's a huge difference between being the form of poetry closest to human speech, and actually being ordinary human speech. Don't get those two confused, because the gap is tremendous. You can't speak poetry off the tip of your tongue as if it were nothing: I doubt even Shakespaere could speak in unabridged poetic form, but certainly, it sounds most natural when poetry is less influenced by rhyme, and more influenced by stress and syllable count. Enjambment and stuff are a little different, and I think the size and separation of reading a line and the next sort of take away from the natural flow of the poem, but hey, it's still good. The iamb is what makes it work, and along with alliteration, I think this style does have some chance at it, but its ties to 'poetry' are a little stretched by dropping rhyme altogether. So yes it sounds natural and as if it might just flow, but then you lose some of the other aspects of it. And when you've got a broad canvas like this one off which to work, you better have some darn good inspiration to shine. - AZU-C Feb 28, 2008
Blank verse seems to be the closest form to human speech. It isn't perfect because it is still in a form, and I don't know anyone who speaks and writes in a form all of the time. The lack of rhyme definately helps its natural sound because people who rhyme while they speak are in the minority these days, and the vast majority of us are rhymeless. I'm sure there are plenty of things that are much closer to normal human speech that could qualify as poems, but they do not have a form. As far as poems that follow a form go, blank verse is the closest. - jko-c Feb 28, 2008
To me, it is not arguable that blank verse is the closest to human speech because it is, in its lack of rhyme and prose-ish style. But my question is rather does this make blank verse the least "poetic"? And if so, why? I would have to say that it is just as poetic as any other style, but that is because I have based my definition of "poetic" from a discussion we had in class about what makes poetry. I believe that blank verse is just as poetic because it requires that same attention that any other type of poetry requires. Even though we may not have to decode rhyme schemes or something like that, it is still a form of poetry. When I think of it this way, I can't really say that any type of poetry is the closest to human speech, because all types are poetic. - ptr-c Mar 10, 2008
ptr, to answer your question, I personally think that blank verse is the least poetic. I think this is because it is the closest to human speech. Sometimes it seems like when I am reading a blank verse it reads just like a novel, it is just shorter and written in a different style. I can see where you are coming from that it requires the same kind of attention but I felt like Jacob's Room required the same kind of attention and that was considered a novel, not a poem. I understand why blank verse is considered poetry it is just hard for me to see it as a poem when it sounds so much like regular spoken language. - kfr-c Mar 11, 2008
I agree with you kfr. the blank verse is much more like a novel or like prose than any other type of poem. Blank verse is a lot like human speech becuase it is not very poetic. I would even compare it to prose, or a novel such as Jacob's Room. I agree with kfr about Jacob's Room about that the detail and attention needed in Jacob's Room, which is prose, is identical to that needed for blank verse. Blank verse does though have some poetic quality to it. This quality may be that it usually comes in shorter segments than a whole novel, or it may be that it can at times have meter to it. Still, i would definitely agree that blank verse is the closest to human dialouge and is not very poetic.- JJa-c Mar 12, 2008
Blank verse could be considered to be the closest thing to human speech. There is a flow about it where the words roll right off of the tongue. I know that when I read some poems aloud I get caught up because I don't recognize a flow in words from one word to the next or one sentence to the next. If a poem is in blank verse it is written more like a speech someone would give and resembles lines of prose. This is where we have to question if blank verse is really a form of poetry. Poetry is distinguishable from prose because it has a catchy sound to it and a certain rhythm. I can't say that blank verse has a catchy sound or a certain rhythm. But this goes back to how one defines poetry. One could say that this is one type of poetry and fits the rules of its form, so it can be considered poetry. However, I have a rough time considering blank verse poetry because I have difficulty considering a lot of what we read as poetry. I can say that I enjoy blank verse because of how it flows off the tip of your tongue.- aja-c Mar 12, 2008
From what I have learned thus far, this is the form that is closest to human speech. As you said, bga, it does not have a rhymme scheme. Is there anybody out there who speaks completely in rhyme? I doubt it. Since human speech does not rhyme, and blank verse does not either, the two are clearly connected. Your argument, bga, seems to be based on internal iambic structure. True, humans do not normally speak in this way. But there are some, like freestyle rappers, who can with ease. Furthermore, it is not set in stone that human speech and blank verse are exactly the same. Blank verse is simply most similar to human speech than any other form, not a carbon copy of it.-
I think the reason why people say it is the closest to human speech is because the iamb mimics the beat of the human heart. That rhythmic quality follows traditional speech. However, I think free verse more closely mimics human speech because in free verse writing there are no restrictions. In human speech you don't think about meter when you speak; you just speak freely, with one idea flowing into the next. I think blank verse does closely mimic human speech but not nearly as well.-
Also with the iambs, would you have noticed they were there had noone pointed them out to you? Unlike some, I am hardly saavy in the world of poetry, and the technical beat is more of something I have to listen for in any poem than actually hear in any [good] reading of the poem. It's not as clearly defined to me as some of you are making it sound. Then there is the issue of hearing it as opposed to reading it. If you just sit back and listen to different readings of poems instead of following along, it's different; you don't see the enjambment, just hear it with a breath. Writing in general is always going to be different than speech. When a poem that has a form to it is written, everything is intentional. When I say something, I am not weighing in my brain which words sound better with the surrounding ones; most likely it is which one gets the point across. And in that sense, if you are reading a poem and comparing it with speech that has been written down, no, it won't be the same. But if you listen to a poet read his/her poem, and then listen to him/her speak, I would imagine they would be extremely similar. -
I was thinking about what makes this form closest to human speech, and though I could not initially think of anything, I eventually came to a conclusion. Blank verse must have a combination of different attributes so that when it is read, it seems casual. On page 101, the description says, "2) It is unrhymed. 3) It is traditionally associated with dramatic speech and epic poetry. 4) The lack of rhyme makes enjambment more possible and often more effective." First, what stands out is that we often subconsciously (and rather immaturely) associate poetry with rhyme; so when a poem does not rhyme, it is automatically one notch closer to the way in which we talk. Also, this enjambment contributes to the continuous running of ideas from one line to the next. It is not choppy. It is, rather, smooth and no breaks exist from line to line to alert us of the poem's structure, that which commonly distinguishes poetry from paragraph form or vernacular. The idea is wrapped into a single breath that is the poem.-
Yes there is another form that is closer to human speach than blank verse. I don't know if we have given it a name or if there even is one. But it is the formless poem. One that does not pay heed to rhyme or rhythm. I would not have known about this a week ago, but recently the class had a talk about what the definition of a poem is after a reading of the "colonel." It was not even written as poem when it was written. The author never even thought of it as poem until someone told her it was poetry. If this is poetry, then it means that there must be millions of poems out there that are not at all constricted by the forms or rhyme or rhythme. They actually are natural human speach. You can't get closer than that.-
As MKo said, the "formless poem" is probably the closest to human speech, because it is human speech. I thought that blank verse was the closest to natural speech, until we read the poem about the colonel. But when it comes to poetry that actually has a form, I agree that blank verse is the closest to the way we speak naturally. No, we don't speak in iambs. But, when you write a paper, or speak formally, don't you try to make the words "flow"? I think this 'flow' comes from a natural iambic rhythm (rhythm of a heartbeat, as somebody else said). And since poetry with a form is intentional, it would be written perfectly in iambs. So, even though we don't always speak perfectly in iambs, blank verse mimics our natural way of speaking formally. -
I think that there is a difference to making something flow versus making sense. I agree that nothing can get closer to human speech than human speech, or so this formless poem seems to take. I think that so many pieces in this world can be considered both prose and poetry, and that it is all an opinion of the writer. Things such as the Apostle's Creed, Kanye West's latest rap, journal entries, and a history paper could be sitting on the line between poetry and prose. Things that began as human speech: statements, treaties, words of love, chants all became poetry at some point or another, but also contained thoughts that would normally be found in a piece of prose. I think that if there was a formless poem, it would just be prose. How would you be able to tell the difference?-
I would actually have to agree with the thought that Blank Verse is the closest poetry form to human speech. I mean, Blank Verse, to me (an untrained eye) basically looks like prose all squished together to make it aesthetically pleasing to the reader. I mean, obviously, it has some sort of set form to it, and I know that, but I'm just saying that it could very easily be prose that someone decided to take and embellish a bit to make it into a poem. I don't know how much closer to human speech you could get to that than, well...speaking.
-
I think that because poetry has such a loose definition, we can say that human speech is poetry. If I decide that certain speech is poetry than it can be poetry. I like the idea that as long as one person thinks something is a poem, then it is a poem. Even if most people believe speech is merely speech, I think that in certain cases speech can be poetry. I think there are many cases in which I have thought that someone talking has spoken poetry. Some people need to see poetry written in a book to say that it is poetry. However, I think poetry can be found anywhere. I think that poetry is something that the reader can find meaning in. However, I think this is also a definition of prose so I must take decide whether something is a poem to me case by case. But just because something is a poem to me does not mean that it is a poem to someone else.-
Yea BGa, as many have said, I think this is the closest form to normal speech. I think in your thought, or at least original post, you don't compare the blank verse to the other forms we have studied. The villanelle, sestina, pantoum, ballad, and any others I am forgetting at the moment are all further from normal speech because they have repeated and rhymed lines which so many have pointed our are not at all how we talk. So just the fact that blank verse has sentences without rhymes, even if they do have beats, makes it the closest to our vernacular.-
I would say this is definitely the closest form to human speech--if you look at the other forms we have studied, such as the villanelle, sestina, or heroic couplet, none of those are close to how people talk. No one repeats the same lines over and over, or uses the same six words and the end of each sentence, and I've never met anyone who spoke entirely in rhyme (although that might be cool). The blank verse may use iambic pantameter, but at least it doesn't use iambic pantameter coupled with some other constraining form that makes it difficult to relate to regular speech. I think that a person could probably speak a blank verse poem without thinking on it too hard. It would probaly not appear in everyday conversation, but it sounds the most similar to how people talk. As someone pointed out, you don't even realize it's in iambic pantameter and you're listening for the accents. -
Unlike the majority of poetic forms, there are no definite rules in blank verse: for this reason alone, it is the most similar to our daily speech. When we talk, we never think about grammar rules or sentence structure when we are talking to our friends--unless you're a grammar freak like some past English teachers--we just talk. Blank verse is like this: there are not any restrictive rules like there are in villanelles and sestinas or even ballads; it is just whatever the writer feels is best for his poem. I've enjoyed this style the most of all the poetic styles we've read so far: I've come to realize that the less amount of structure and rules there are in a poem, the more I enjoy reading it, and blank verse is about as lawless as one can get. A solid beat or rhythm in its sentences or string of words is the only requirement I think there is for blank verse; otherwise, it is a blank canvas that is open to anything.
-
Conversation is a very good comparison to free verse poetry. Does it have to rhyme? No. Does it have to make sense? No. It just has to flow in a manner of speech. For example, I am going to type as though I am speaking and try not to think about my grammar as much as I normally would. O.K. So, I think that poetry is a way to communicate beyond the strict borders that writers are usually confined by. No one will challenge or correct an expression, only discuss it. Who are we to criticize what a poet did or does--and who are we to criticize an artists form of expression? If we can criticize their expressions, then aren't we criticizing their souls--the very core that a person is? Is a black dot on a piece of paper art? Sure it is as long as the artist defined it as such. Do we want to live in a world in which everything is only what it is defined by? I don't. And, I don't want you to either. We need to be able to express ourselves in some way or another, and if poetry and art begin to be limited for us by people trying to box in the defintion, than where will we turn? How can I live in a world where are expressions are evaluated by definition? I couldn't--could you? -
Okay, so blank verse isn't exactly like human speech because it uses iambs, that much is obvious. If they were exactly the same, it would not have its own name in the world of poetry. Still, the question leads to the answer that, as far as my limited mine knows, it is the closest material we have to our speech. Also, in response to CDu, I think there are always going to be critics on works that are made public. I'm not saying that it is right to judge the way someone expresses themselves, but then is it wrong for people to express their opinions? If people can't critique, the artists can lose the chance of improving. Plus, if you are going to put yourself and your work out there for the public eye, you should know that you are going to receive all kinds of feedback. It should be okay - everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and if an artist truly is inspired by and believes in what he or she has done, what others say shouldn't matter. And expressions don't have to be evaluated by a definition - it is the producer of the work who decides how they want to convey what they want to convey. That person can do it however he or she wants, but if the person chooses to use a particular method, why not stick to it and play by the rules? Love it or leave it, right? -
Okay, there's a huge difference between being the form of poetry closest to human speech, and actually being ordinary human speech. Don't get those two confused, because the gap is tremendous. You can't speak poetry off the tip of your tongue as if it were nothing: I doubt even Shakespaere could speak in unabridged poetic form, but certainly, it sounds most natural when poetry is less influenced by rhyme, and more influenced by stress and syllable count. Enjambment and stuff are a little different, and I think the size and separation of reading a line and the next sort of take away from the natural flow of the poem, but hey, it's still good. The iamb is what makes it work, and along with alliteration, I think this style does have some chance at it, but its ties to 'poetry' are a little stretched by dropping rhyme altogether. So yes it sounds natural and as if it might just flow, but then you lose some of the other aspects of it. And when you've got a broad canvas like this one off which to work, you better have some darn good inspiration to shine. -
Blank verse seems to be the closest form to human speech. It isn't perfect because it is still in a form, and I don't know anyone who speaks and writes in a form all of the time. The lack of rhyme definately helps its natural sound because people who rhyme while they speak are in the minority these days, and the vast majority of us are rhymeless. I'm sure there are plenty of things that are much closer to normal human speech that could qualify as poems, but they do not have a form. As far as poems that follow a form go, blank verse is the closest.
-
To me, it is not arguable that blank verse is the closest to human speech because it is, in its lack of rhyme and prose-ish style. But my question is rather does this make blank verse the least "poetic"? And if so, why? I would have to say that it is just as poetic as any other style, but that is because I have based my definition of "poetic" from a discussion we had in class about what makes poetry. I believe that blank verse is just as poetic because it requires that same attention that any other type of poetry requires. Even though we may not have to decode rhyme schemes or something like that, it is still a form of poetry. When I think of it this way, I can't really say that any type of poetry is the closest to human speech, because all types are poetic. -
ptr, to answer your question, I personally think that blank verse is the least poetic. I think this is because it is the closest to human speech. Sometimes it seems like when I am reading a blank verse it reads just like a novel, it is just shorter and written in a different style. I can see where you are coming from that it requires the same kind of attention but I felt like Jacob's Room required the same kind of attention and that was considered a novel, not a poem. I understand why blank verse is considered poetry it is just hard for me to see it as a poem when it sounds so much like regular spoken language. -
I agree with you kfr. the blank verse is much more like a novel or like prose than any other type of poem. Blank verse is a lot like human speech becuase it is not very poetic. I would even compare it to prose, or a novel such as Jacob's Room. I agree with kfr about Jacob's Room about that the detail and attention needed in Jacob's Room, which is prose, is identical to that needed for blank verse. Blank verse does though have some poetic quality to it. This quality may be that it usually comes in shorter segments than a whole novel, or it may be that it can at times have meter to it. Still, i would definitely agree that blank verse is the closest to human dialouge and is not very poetic.-
Blank verse could be considered to be the closest thing to human speech. There is a flow about it where the words roll right off of the tongue. I know that when I read some poems aloud I get caught up because I don't recognize a flow in words from one word to the next or one sentence to the next. If a poem is in blank verse it is written more like a speech someone would give and resembles lines of prose. This is where we have to question if blank verse is really a form of poetry. Poetry is distinguishable from prose because it has a catchy sound to it and a certain rhythm. I can't say that blank verse has a catchy sound or a certain rhythm. But this goes back to how one defines poetry. One could say that this is one type of poetry and fits the rules of its form, so it can be considered poetry. However, I have a rough time considering blank verse poetry because I have difficulty considering a lot of what we read as poetry. I can say that I enjoy blank verse because of how it flows off the tip of your tongue.-